Marcus B

This is the issue with the plant supplied to a few of us as "Giant". It is supposed to be the same plant material that John called "Hummer's Giant". Unfortunately the two people that may have been able confirm this have both died. Because the link cannot be proved I have kept it labelled with name that it was supplied under, as changing the name would only add to the confusion if it is not identical. One of the issues with "Giant" is that does not alway grow to its full potential. My plants are left outside in an open "hot" house. As I have said elsewhere, cuttings passed onto others and grown in more controlled conditions show faster growth and more consistant size. If I was the one buying the plant instead of the one distributing it, and I my plants then failed to grow to the expected size would you think that I had a right to protest that they are not real? I think the main problem the idea of cultivars is that they seem to have the potential to show a certain growth habit, colouration or morphology, more than other clones, but they don't always do so.

It is suprising what some people will pay for certain plants.

I understand your point, and I agree with you in the main. My only reservation is with a simple kit that it may not produce the evidence of the genetic differences, if they are not exposed by the cuts made in the DNA. Testing would be needed to find out what cuts in the DNA would produce a distinguishing band separation pattern so that it actually works as required. What if, as I have seen alleged (and which I find hard to believe, although it may be a matter of how much difference is significant) all Cephs are genetically pretty much the same. If the apparent differences are due to epigenic changes, then it may be possible that a plant is put forward as being different due to those effects, while not being significant different from a genetic position. Such issues would be beyond the simple PCR kit's ability to determine. It might also be why the features hold for some growers and not others. Testing differences using PCR may well be the key, but I think it needs to be investigated by someone with appropriate experience. When it is known what differences there are and how to detect them, then a simple kit may be useful. Then there could be a market for "Clone Id Kits" to see if your plant matches the known named linages.

Unfortunately PCR is not always the best way to check this sort of thing. Epigenic differences are unlikely to show up this way, and yet they impact how the same sequence of DNA is processed, or not processed. Epigenic changes can be influenced by environment and may, or may not be, passed on for several generations, even when the environmental factor that caused them changes. I have also heard of species that appear to have supposedly matching DNA giving very different results when particular strands are blocked with a probe. Clearly there was difference in how the same DNA information was processed in the two species. This is less likely within a species, but the point remains. I know that I am coming late to this discussion and I have not read through all the comments, but I think that the article has a good point. However, I don't think we should simply dismiss good plants that grow well for a number of people over a long period of time. Personally I have few location plants and woud like more, but I also like to get material from people whose particular plants seem to be a little different to the average Ceph. Some of these may prove to be merely due to the conditions, but some seem to be consistantly a little bit different. However, not enough to tag them as cultivars. Having location plants is a good back up for conservation in case sites are damaged or lost. However, unless there are real differences between plants from different locations, it would not serve any other real purpose. Just collecting plants based on a label does not seem sensible to me. That said, the location plants that I do have continue to show the morphology of plants in photos of insitu plants at that site that I have seen in multiple photos from various people. I have changed my plants' conditions several times over the years that I have had them and the morphology remains consistant and different to the rest of my plants. Other plants have on occasion had pitchers of a similar shape, but not consistantly. I think the main point is that we still have lot to learn about this plant and what differences there may or may not be between different specimens. In the mean time what we really have is a lot of opinions and a fair amount of confusion. Personally, with all the different named plants that I have seen referred to, I have never seen anyone trying to force me to by one. However, I have had people offer rediculous amounts for plants just because they looked good in a photo. A lot less interest has then been shown in the same plant just because the colour faded, even though it was then bigger.

Flared mid rib or no flared mid rib, as far as I am concerned, the fact that my Giant will grow to nearly twice the size of my other plants, in a good season, sets it apart. Yes some of my other plants may produce a few larger than normal pitchers, but not with the same consistancy. Even the non-carnivorous leaves are much larger on average. Unfortunately it is much slower growing. Some people that I have passed it on to have produced even better looking plants, with bigger pitchers, simply because they have better set ups. It has been amazing how well their plants have grown in 12 months, to bring out their full potential.

The second photo looks like my plant that is supposedly from the same material. It has only occasionally produced pitchers with the flaired mid rib, even when trying to grow it under similar conditions to what Charles taught me. Unfortunately I cannot match his conditions with my set up and now my plants are more at the mercy of the weather.

I have three Phil Mann clones. I have three slightly different plants from Phil Mann that are cloned from his plants. It is no different to having an Allen Lowrie clone. It could be from any one of number of plants in their collections. It just tells you where it come from. It is not a specific plant.

I have just checked the contents of the ICPS newletter. I don't access to the full contents, but the listed topic being "New cultivars: Cephalotus follicularis ‘Clayton’s T Rex’" is most likely a plant belonging to Colin Clayton, the former owner of Triffid Park, which is now run by his daughter, Donna, who is on this forum. Colin is the person I got my first Ceph from. He ships plants all around the world, or did, through TP. If it is Colin, then you could contact Donna. I have given Colin a "Giant", so he may be using that for breeding Cephs, but he has had a range of plants sourced from different places. He has been experiementing with breeding CP for a long time now. I would expect that if the plant goes into major production then it will be available through Triffid Park. Colin is always a pleasure to deal with.

Update on my Cephs growing on Tree-fern slabs. It would seem that after a year of doing well on the Tree-fern that this experiment has failed. The moss started to die off and the cephs had to be removed (although I have left one to see if it survives). It would appear that the fern stem breaks down over time, making it unsuitable for Cephs in the long term. At a guess, I would say the nutient levels got too high for the Cephs to cope with. I am currently trialing a basket pot on top of an ordinary pot as I have issue with growth coming out of the sides of baskets dying off when I have to raise water levels to keep them cool in summer. Not raising the water level seemed to result in the airy pots getting too warm on hot days.

Windowsills can be quite bad for Cephs. Even though they get plenty of light and seem to get air, they can be pockets of dead air either due to curtains or just due to being endented from the rest of the room. Some people have apparently used small solar powered fans with some success to overcome this issue.

Keeping location details with a clone is a great way to try preserve natural variation with a species, even if is not enough to make them look anything different from most others of the species. As I have said before, it can be help to enable the replanting of an area that loses it natural population. There was a situation with a variety of S. purpurea that was declared extinct, until it was discovered that it was a local form from which seed had been collected. It was being grown successfully here in Melbourne and so material was able to be sent back to the USA. If it had not been correctly labelled, it may have ended up just mixed with other purps and its unique features lost in cross breeding. It is situations like this in which the plant's unique features are only recognised after the wild populations are wiped out, being assumed to be just a "typical" form, that give good reason to record and maintain location details.

Sound a bit like my "Giant". May be that is the true origin of my plant, it is not the same as a Hummer, it is the same as a JJ, only bigger!

Great colouration.

Just one question. How are you supposed to pick a "real Allen Lowrie" when he sends out plants grown from about 100 different parent plants? How many different plants are genuine Julie Jones? Or is that she was sending them out under other names? I have quite a few different Allen Lowrie clones, and I know that they are all genuine as I bought them from him. He did his best to provide me with plants showing different morphologies, growth habits and colourations, and there is quite a bit of subtle variation in them. When I pass on cuttings from such plants I would not expect anyone to be able to look at them and say "That is definately an Allen Lowrie". Stick with labelling it with the source you got it from if you don't trust the label it came with.

Some of our major local suppliers seem to only send out bare root plants, or in fact, no roots plants (rhizome cuttings). It usually means that the plants die right back and then take a year or two to recover (one tends to send out extra cuttings with the order to cover any losses). However, some of the ones that I bought last year have done so well that they are currently sending up multiple flower spikes. Personally, I prefer to sell them fully potted, but it increases the postage costs.

Sorry, but by "us" I am referring to the society that I am part of, and not all of us on this forum. My apologies for not clarifying what I meant. We had a range of Cephs of various origins, and grown in different set ups, to compare it to. Sean had a few EB x EB seedlings and "Son of EB" was distinctly darker than any other plant that we had to compare it to, including the other EB x EB seedlings in the same pot. Making comparisions between actual plants sitting along side one another in the same lighting is far more worthwhile than comparing different photos, as I know my own plants can look darker if photographed on a dull day than if the same plant is photographed in bright sunshine.

Definitions from “The Language of Botany” - C. Debenham, The Society for Growing Australian Plants Cultivar: a variety or race (strain) produced in cultivation, not necessarily referable to a taxonomic unit Cultigen: a plant or group of plants known only in cultivation, apparently origination under domestication. Clone: a group of individuals, each a ramet, produced asexually from a single parent hence normally of uniform genetic identity. Form, Forma : a category subordinate to a species and subspecies. A sub-group within a species displaying a minor character, e.g. of habit, pubescence, colour etc. Also Race. Variant: an individual, species, or parameter departing in some character or characters from the mean of the characters shared by a group or population. Variety: a minor category at a level below a species. A group of individuals within a species which have morphological similarities and a restricted geographic range, and maintain a distinction from other individuals of the same species. It is below the level of a subspecies, the latter category used in relation to a segment of a species with much broader distribution than the variety. In many floras, a distinction is rarely made and the terms variety may mean actually subspecies. “Henderson’s dictionary of Biological terms” - Sandra Holmes, 9th Ed Ramet: [L. ramus, branch] an individual member of a clone. While from a technical definition a cultivar does not have to be registered to exist, it ought to be registered to be recognised as it needs to be defined somehow. Otherwise any similar plant may be passed off as the cultivar, even if it is not true breeding.

I have been growing Cephs for a long time now, so I am no "newbie" either. However, my plants have to survive outside in unheated/uncooled conditions which differ from their native climate. Others in our society have much better, more controlled, environments for their Cephs to grow in, and, even though they have less time growing them, their set ups enable the "Giant"s to grow much better than the parent plant does in my collection. Experience is not always the most important reason for why someone gets better results. Equipment goes a long way to push things in the right direction, and even then, with Cephs it is no guarrentee of the same results. Photos of "Son of EB" are on this forum. I got to see it in person, on more than one occasion, and it was clearly much darker than anything any of the rest of us had seen before. If any of my surviving seedlings are half as colourful in normal conditions I will be pleased. My plants get quite dark, but not as easily, or as dark, as "Son of EB" did. As far as I am concerned, Stephen has produced something that is different to the Typical Ceph, even if it is possible to get other Cephs to look similar, with more effort.

I may have to check this when I am at home and have my Language of Botany dictionary handy, but basically a clone is an organism that is asexually produced from another individual and is therefore genetically identical to the parent. A cultivar is registered form of a plant that is consistent and distinct in its characteristics. A cultivar may be produced by cloning a distinct individual or by breeding a distinct lineage that can be reproduced from seed. Thus a cultivar is not necessary a clone and can show some genetic variation. A cultivar is basically different to the wild type or more common form of the plant due to human selection and breeding of the plant by various methods. Until a plant is registered as a cultivar, if it is simply reproduced asexually, then the descendants are clones of the original seed grown individual. Variety can be used of variations from the registered type (the specimen that is used to define the species) found in wild plants. They may be elevated to sub species or even separate species if it is warrented.

I have found that my plants will colour up differently seemingly depending on the size of the pot. My big pot of Giant rarely gets very dark in colour, while the smaller pots colour up very well but often don't get as big. Another grower had a plant that I supplied him with, 12 months before hand, that had very dark large pitchers. He has a much better set up for growing Cephs and brought out the plant's potential in both colour and size. I would expect the same thing to happen with EB. Some people will be better able to bring out the full potential due to their set ups, while others cannot. It does not change the fact that the genetic potential is there and it is worthy of it being recognised.

Actually I use the initials of the supplier and a number for most of my plants.

That is the problem, and why I keep it labelled "Giant" rather than 'Hummer's Giant', as I did not receive it under that name. From the information that I have gathered, John sent material to a member of our society who was able to legally import and quarantine plants. The material was later grown at a commercial nursery and then distributed to society members, including myself, under the name of “Giant”. Unfortunately the person who received and grew the material has died, but Allen Lowrie tells me that the story of it is origin is correct. If you want to be sure the plant you have is “Hummer’s Giant’ talk to Charles Brewer, as he got his plants directly from John Hummer. He ought to be able to supply the genuine named clone.

From what I remember from Plant Science lectures, many plants grow together not only because the do best in similar conditions but because they share a relationship with particular fungi. One species may be the carrier of the fungus (it spreads with that plants seeds or in some other way) and the other plants then do best when that plant is present with the fungus. This occurs with some of our native ground orchids which makes some harder to grow in pots as they need to be at the base of certain trees to do well. From memory there have been a few attempts to see if this is a factor in Ceph's growth but nothing conclusive was determined. Try different plants and see what happens, if you have Cephs to spare.